CardsFan88
ASFN Addict
- Joined
- May 28, 2002
- Posts
- 7,470
- Reaction score
- 4,329
I would've taken Oden. If healthy, the projection was that a dominant center beats an undersized forward (weight wise). Oden sans injury was that guy. The guy was having his games televised in high school, and perhaps even as early as 8th grade, which was when I started following him.
Sans injury, he was the sure thing. But the sure thing is never sure, because things like injuries, off the field, etc can always get in the way.
You knew Durant had skills, but one also had to be concerned about how thin he was. While of course players get bigger and stronger, it sometimes comes at the cost of athleticism, which sometimes takes away the attributes you were selecting him for.
Durant being toothpick skinny was very concerning to me...especially when you are considering a dominant center as the alternative that everyone had seen due to the hype for five years or so.
So that was my thinking then. Skinny guy who would get smashed down low until he got bigger, which might have taken away his athleticism, while Oden was the down low center presence that all teams want yet rarely get.
I'd probably do it again if presented with a similar scenario, but on this occasion, it was totally the wrong move.
How small Durant was, didn't affect him. His young body was able to take the pounding. He's gotten a little bigger, and only gotten better as his athleticism didn't decrease. Also turned out to be even more athletic that I thought him to be at the time.
Oden however has been a walking injury. Now some people question his drive. But then again, you can't entirely blame the guy, he's never playing...hard to be driven when you can never play because of injury.
Of course hindsight being 20/20, you take Durant and run. We didn't know this, and the trailblazers made the right choice for the time given the info, but the absolute wrong choice given how things transpired afterwards.
Oden was the flat out dominant center teams crave, and there are a lot fewer of them that go around than any other position. You just don't get chances to draft centers like him often. Stars at other positions are easier to find and in greater number.
The conventional wisdom was wrong, because it can be, and in this case, it was.
Sans injury, he was the sure thing. But the sure thing is never sure, because things like injuries, off the field, etc can always get in the way.
You knew Durant had skills, but one also had to be concerned about how thin he was. While of course players get bigger and stronger, it sometimes comes at the cost of athleticism, which sometimes takes away the attributes you were selecting him for.
Durant being toothpick skinny was very concerning to me...especially when you are considering a dominant center as the alternative that everyone had seen due to the hype for five years or so.
So that was my thinking then. Skinny guy who would get smashed down low until he got bigger, which might have taken away his athleticism, while Oden was the down low center presence that all teams want yet rarely get.
I'd probably do it again if presented with a similar scenario, but on this occasion, it was totally the wrong move.
How small Durant was, didn't affect him. His young body was able to take the pounding. He's gotten a little bigger, and only gotten better as his athleticism didn't decrease. Also turned out to be even more athletic that I thought him to be at the time.
Oden however has been a walking injury. Now some people question his drive. But then again, you can't entirely blame the guy, he's never playing...hard to be driven when you can never play because of injury.
Of course hindsight being 20/20, you take Durant and run. We didn't know this, and the trailblazers made the right choice for the time given the info, but the absolute wrong choice given how things transpired afterwards.
Oden was the flat out dominant center teams crave, and there are a lot fewer of them that go around than any other position. You just don't get chances to draft centers like him often. Stars at other positions are easier to find and in greater number.
The conventional wisdom was wrong, because it can be, and in this case, it was.
